We have to take more risks in this modern NFL

[jazzcat22]

I think you need to know when to take a gamble and when to play it close to the vest. The aforementioned can be more art or feel than science. It's real easy to sit in the bleachers or to write a column being critical of a coaches decision, it's an entirely different perspective for those folks on the sideline calling the plays and also for the players themselves. How many negative plays have we seen as of late? What is the mental state of the team at that particular point of the game? Lots of variables to be accounted for in those situations that we "fans" don't consider or don't even acknowledge.


Craig

Good post.
We have hours to dissect the game from hindsight. They have 40 seconds and sometimes 25 seconds. Not to mention hurry up offenses and 2 minute drills.
But that doesn't matter to some, they see and think what they think they see and think they know.

Something also to remember from the Washington game....they had no sideline communications for the surface pads, and the old fashioned pictures weren't even working either.
So for not seeing what was going on to make some in game adjustments, I think they did pretty well.
Defense played great, Offense moved the ball except for 3 fumbles that kept the Commanders in the game. As some penalties stalled Commanders drives.

 

[CATCH17]

We need plays offensively that allow us to take less risks imo.

Our scheme is so basic that the other team is running our routes for us. We need more plays that get guys open and just get the ball in their hands instead of all of the vertical / slow developing stuff.


Defensively... Obviously we need to take more risks.

 

[jazzcat22]

As to other posts, some good stuff too. Yes, need much more calculated risks. I wouldn't say playing scared is the right term. More closer to the vest, but not as close as Parcels played it. Now he cost us some games IMO too.
Really caught everyone by surprise Monday night with the blitzes, and they kept it up. Now GB will be expecting that, or will they expect us to back off a bit. I say bring it regardless. GB OL not playing that well. We played other banged up OL in past games and they played like our OL is supposed to play. But we didn't blitz either.

On offense, not so many 1st down runs. not sure what the numbers were last game, but seems they did pass more on 1st down plays than usual.
And the FINALLY brought back those runs whit Whitehead. that was out of the norm also. Some more deep passes than usual too.

Desperation must win games finally making them do stuff they should have been doing all along. and brings some excitement from both sides of the ball.

 

[Jarv]

JG coaches the whole game like he has a 2 TD lead in the 4th quarter.

 

[Aven8]

Good post.
We have hours to dissect the game from hindsight. They have 40 seconds and sometimes 25 seconds. Not to mention hurry up offenses and 2 minute drills.
But that doesn't matter to some, they see and think what they think they see and think they know.

Something also to remember from the Washington game....they had no sideline communications for the surface pads, and the old fashioned pictures weren't even working either.
So for not seeing what was going on to make some in game adjustments, I think they did pretty well.
Defense played great, Offense moved the ball except for 3 fumbles that kept the Commanders in the game. As some penalties stalled Commanders drives.

I actually think not haveing the Ipads and pics helped this team as they had to go out and play. They also had to rely on old fashion scouting. I think a lot of times you can do more damge than good with all that info and data. Just line up and play!

 

[jazzcat22]

We need plays offensively that allow us to take less risks imo.

Our scheme is so basic that the other team is running our routes for us. We need more plays that get guys open and just get the ball in their hands instead of all of the vertical / slow developing stuff.


Defensively... Obviously we need to take more risks.

Agree with the scheme being basic.
Wonder if Garrett's playbook and theory goes back to the 90's. The playbook was not that complex, and they had basically 4 running plays from different positions. It was just they were so good at it. Defenses knew what was coming, but they could not stop it. Not all the time.
That offense does not work any more. And I believe Garrett's playbook from what they said a long time ago, has the same plays, but from different formations. It's been figured out years ago.

Not sure what you mean by taking less risk. I guess to some risks means the very odd plays, throw deep more, try trick plays and such. But by less risk, you mean create plays that put the players in position to better succeed? As opposed to the risk of the defense knowing the play and can defend it better?

 

[jazzcat22]

I actually think not haveing the Ipads and pics helped this team as they had to go out and play. They also had to rely on old fashion scouting. I think a lot of times you can do more damge than good with all that info and data. Just line up and play!

Gruden did say, when in comes down to it, they don't help as much as what people think they do. Maybe there is some truth to that. But also part, he was down playing it, as not to make it seem all that serious. Which it isn't. But said it so it wouldn't be over evaluated as to reasons of winning or losing.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Some of this isn't really the modern NFL. A lot of it is more about the way the game has always been, but the loss aversion that presides in most humans tends to make them more conservative. I'll give Belichick credit like I will freely pass out $100 bills, but I give him credit for researching the data and being one of the most aggressive strategic coaches out there.

What I do think has changed is that it's more of a turnover based game for defenses. Those great defenses that do not make a lot of turnovers are far and few between since 2010. The passes get off so quickly that the completion %'s are going to be high, so you hope to get interceptions and occasionally the QB strip fumble sack.

I would be more interested in seeing the defense blitz more. Let's experiment with it and experiment with ways to defend against the horizontal routes/pick play patterns.




YR

 

[DenCWBY]

Some of this isn't really the modern NFL. A lot of it is more about the way the game has always been, but the loss aversion that presides in most humans tends to make them more conservative. I'll give Belichick credit like I will freely pass out $100 bills, but I give him credit for researching the data and being one of the most aggressive strategic coaches out there.

What I do think has changed is that it's more of a turnover based game for defenses. Those great defenses that do not make a lot of turnovers are far and few between since 2010. The passes get off so quickly that the completion %'s are going to be high, so you hope to get interceptions and occasionally the QB strip fumble sack.

I would be more interested in seeing the defense blitz more. Let's experiment with it and experiment with ways to defend against the horizontal routes/pick play patterns.




YR

Well it (Blitz) worked last week so you have to keep disguising it to keep it effective or eventually get burned. I think the coaches are very concerned with leaving our "great" CB's on an island in the process and (with frustration), I have to agree with that thought process.
With GB if Rodgers (who is a great escape artist) frees himself out of the pocket, he'll kill you by run or pass. He extends drives like no other that way so there's an extra burden to our blitz.
To win this game we'll have to get some turnovers and play a flawless (turn over free) offense that scores points or extends drives to keep their offense off the field. I have not seen enough improvement in Cassel to think he can outscore this or any team mano y mano. We'll need some breaks and calls to go our way.